Scan barcode
kristenmhollis's review against another edition
4.0
Really practical content, but so many stories, and definitely could've just been a really good article.
breenmachine's review against another edition
2.0
I loved the subject matter and the first 25% of the book. The rest felt repetitive and boring. It would have easily been at least half the length.
I enjoying reading about the "standing in line" study. The "cheat sheets" at the end of each chapter are handy. I learned some tips I can hopefully integrate into my life.
I enjoying reading about the "standing in line" study. The "cheat sheets" at the end of each chapter are handy. I learned some tips I can hopefully integrate into my life.
erikars's review
4.0
Oh look, I'm finally reviewing this, almost two months later. This is what comes of getting behind :-D
As is usual for books by this crew, the content is top notch and provides valuable tools. As is also the case for books by this group, as writing, it's a bit dry.
This book covers crucial accountability conversations. These conversations are reserved for serious violated expectations or broken commitments. Often they are challenging to even start. The first part of the model asks you to consider: is this a time for an accountability conversation? Figure out what the conversation should be about and then if it is worth having. Not all problems are serious enough to warrant an accountability conversation. One useful tool from this section is to think about repeated infractions through the lens of CPR. The first time a violation occurs, discuss the content ("you were late for an important meeting"). The second time, discuss the pattern ("you are regularly late for an important meeting"). The third time, start to discuss the impact on your relationship ("I can no longer trust you to handle important meetings").
The second part of the model asks you to make sure that you are not looking at the event too narrowly. Come in informed. Ask yourself why a reasonable, rational person would do what you've observed (keep asking until you actually believe your answer). While doing this, look at all of the sources of influence on a person (this pulls heavily from the model in Influencer): what are their sources of personal motivation? Peer motivation? Structural motivation (e.g., incentives and punishments)? What about their personal ability? Do they have the right support from others? Does the structure and environment support their getting the task done?
Finally, you are ready to have the accountability conversation. The most important thing is to create an atmosphere of psychological safety. If a topic is not particularly sensitive then you can start by simply and directly describe the performance gap between what was expected and what was observed. Do not include your interpretation yet. If you see signs that safety is at risk, stop immediately and work to repair it. Then tentatively share your interpretation about what happened. Finally, end with a simple, sincere, "What happened?"
If safety is at risk, consider why. The two primary reasons people feel unsafe is that they believe that you do not respect them as a person or they believe that your goals are at odds with theirs. To restore safety, first make sure you really do respect the other person. You can't fake it. Then you can use contrasting to explicitly say what you don't mean, "I am not saying you do not care about these important meetings. It's just that regularly being late...". If the problem is lack of mutual purpose, again start by looking at yourself. Is your goal aligned with their goals? If not, then the conversation is not likely to go well. If it is aligned, then openly stating your goal can help get the conversation back on track ("I really want you to be at your most effective when interacting with our VP."). Other things that help are always (always always) having accountability conversations in private and asking permission before discussing delicate topics.
Once mutual purpose has been established and you both agree on the accountability gap, the next step is to motivate the other person to overcome the gap. Look at the influence model to figure out what motivations may be lacking. Do not be afraid to highlight the natural consequences of failing to change. On the flip side, don't assume that everything is a motivation problem. Look for gaps in ability. And be honest about the impact of social and structural challenges on motivation and ability. If there is social status loss associated with closing the gap or if there are structural reasons that make execution hard, then focusing on personal motivation and skills will not be enough. Or to put it another way, fixing the accountability gap may not be something that the other person can do on their own.
Importantly, make sure the end of the conversation clearly defines who will do what by when. Make sure that the details are clear. Vague commitments to do better next time are not sufficient. Ask whatever clarifying questions you need to be confident that the plan addresses the issue. And then, critically, remember to actually follow-up. Consider this your responsibility as the person who initiated the conversation.
That's the gist of the model. The book itself contains numerous illustrative examples as well as discussions of what not to do.
Ending on a personal note, doing this is hard. A real accountability conversation takes time and work, and it's easy to try and skimp on the preparation. However, without this, as I know from personal experience, it's altogether too easy to get stuck in the debating the details of the content rather than the accountability gap. And it's even easier to not have time to get a clear and agreed upon commitment on next steps. Having a model helps you see what you're doing wrong, but only practice will get you to the point where you do it right.
As is usual for books by this crew, the content is top notch and provides valuable tools. As is also the case for books by this group, as writing, it's a bit dry.
This book covers crucial accountability conversations. These conversations are reserved for serious violated expectations or broken commitments. Often they are challenging to even start. The first part of the model asks you to consider: is this a time for an accountability conversation? Figure out what the conversation should be about and then if it is worth having. Not all problems are serious enough to warrant an accountability conversation. One useful tool from this section is to think about repeated infractions through the lens of CPR. The first time a violation occurs, discuss the content ("you were late for an important meeting"). The second time, discuss the pattern ("you are regularly late for an important meeting"). The third time, start to discuss the impact on your relationship ("I can no longer trust you to handle important meetings").
The second part of the model asks you to make sure that you are not looking at the event too narrowly. Come in informed. Ask yourself why a reasonable, rational person would do what you've observed (keep asking until you actually believe your answer). While doing this, look at all of the sources of influence on a person (this pulls heavily from the model in Influencer): what are their sources of personal motivation? Peer motivation? Structural motivation (e.g., incentives and punishments)? What about their personal ability? Do they have the right support from others? Does the structure and environment support their getting the task done?
Finally, you are ready to have the accountability conversation. The most important thing is to create an atmosphere of psychological safety. If a topic is not particularly sensitive then you can start by simply and directly describe the performance gap between what was expected and what was observed. Do not include your interpretation yet. If you see signs that safety is at risk, stop immediately and work to repair it. Then tentatively share your interpretation about what happened. Finally, end with a simple, sincere, "What happened?"
If safety is at risk, consider why. The two primary reasons people feel unsafe is that they believe that you do not respect them as a person or they believe that your goals are at odds with theirs. To restore safety, first make sure you really do respect the other person. You can't fake it. Then you can use contrasting to explicitly say what you don't mean, "I am not saying you do not care about these important meetings. It's just that regularly being late...". If the problem is lack of mutual purpose, again start by looking at yourself. Is your goal aligned with their goals? If not, then the conversation is not likely to go well. If it is aligned, then openly stating your goal can help get the conversation back on track ("I really want you to be at your most effective when interacting with our VP."). Other things that help are always (always always) having accountability conversations in private and asking permission before discussing delicate topics.
Once mutual purpose has been established and you both agree on the accountability gap, the next step is to motivate the other person to overcome the gap. Look at the influence model to figure out what motivations may be lacking. Do not be afraid to highlight the natural consequences of failing to change. On the flip side, don't assume that everything is a motivation problem. Look for gaps in ability. And be honest about the impact of social and structural challenges on motivation and ability. If there is social status loss associated with closing the gap or if there are structural reasons that make execution hard, then focusing on personal motivation and skills will not be enough. Or to put it another way, fixing the accountability gap may not be something that the other person can do on their own.
Importantly, make sure the end of the conversation clearly defines who will do what by when. Make sure that the details are clear. Vague commitments to do better next time are not sufficient. Ask whatever clarifying questions you need to be confident that the plan addresses the issue. And then, critically, remember to actually follow-up. Consider this your responsibility as the person who initiated the conversation.
That's the gist of the model. The book itself contains numerous illustrative examples as well as discussions of what not to do.
Ending on a personal note, doing this is hard. A real accountability conversation takes time and work, and it's easy to try and skimp on the preparation. However, without this, as I know from personal experience, it's altogether too easy to get stuck in the debating the details of the content rather than the accountability gap. And it's even easier to not have time to get a clear and agreed upon commitment on next steps. Having a model helps you see what you're doing wrong, but only practice will get you to the point where you do it right.